For us there are no dialectics: creation is not set against divine energy and presence, but is in fact its intended telos. God thus manifests His uncreated glory in time and space and in multitudes of created forms: upon this hangs the reality of the Gospel and the reality of the Incarnation as a deification of Christ’s humanity, and by extension, us who participate in His deified flesh. Anything else is Arian heresy. Like His humanity or the sacraments, created forms really and truly thus become vehicles of uncreated reality and not ‘created grace.’ The light of Mt. Tabor is uncreated and so is the light we partake of, divine grace – hesychasm. And to add fuel to this fire, virtually all Protestants also teach grace is created, too!
How close is St. Maximus to St. Augustine’s view of the association between reproduction and original sin when St. Maximus says:
“…sin appeared through the transgression, and because of sin the passibility associated with birth entered human nature, so that through sin the original transgression continued to thrive together with the passibility associated with birth, there was no hope of freedom, since human nature was bound in the disposition of its will by an indissoluble bond of evil. The more human nature hastened to propagate itself to the law of sin, insofar as nature’s very passibility reactivated the transgression within it. (Responses to Thalassios, 21.3, translated by Fr. Maximos Constas)
I know you’re very familiar with St. Augustine so I wanted his accurate views vs. Orthodox or RCC caricatures of him.
This is Orthodox. It is our teaching on gnomic will.
I completely agree. But I was wondering how to this compared to how St. Augustine associated sex and concupiscence.
Ten answer is found in Free Choice in St Maximos. The problem lies in Augustine’s anthropology and ADS